I live in the next town down from Sanford, and have to go up into town a few times a week as my son plays on a Sanford team for summer ball and our home stadium is up there right in a sketchy part of town.

I am not watching, but I am hoping this thing stretches about 3-4 more weeks when his season is finished and I have no good reason to go up there. Then again the locals might not mass march on acquittal I am not sure how closely they associate with a Miami kid who was in town to visit.

He will be acquitted. Defense hardly has to poke holes, but they can drive a truck through the fact he was not arrested initially. Nancy Grace is fanning the flames of white guilt and sensationalism...

"When a man with money meets a man with experience, the man with experience leaves with money and the man with money leaves with experience."

The problem with that CDT is legally that doesn't hurt the defense of GZ one bit.

People seem to forget the burden of proof lies with the prosecution (not talking about you personally). Almost every single legal piece of this thing is on GZ's side.

Establishing the slightest bit of doubt is not difficult at all with this, and that is all that is required to acquit GZ. However, this could very well be an example in which justice is truly not served regardless of the verdict.

That's a shame IMO.

Criminals in this town used to believe in things...honor, respect."I heard your dog is sick, so bought you this shovel"

I do love the Fat George transformation from threatening votto to chubby harmless nuggett. Genius.

Anerson Coopr is the best one to watch for this.

RE: GZ weight, couple different angles to look at. Strategic? If so probably a decent strategy. But let's remember he's been essentially locked in a house this entire time, most likely stressed out like a MoFo. How big do you think you would be from that?

Criminals in this town used to believe in things...honor, respect."I heard your dog is sick, so bought you this shovel"

I do love the Fat George transformation from threatening votto to chubby harmless nuggett. Genius.

Anerson Coopr is the best one to watch for this.

RE: GZ weight, couple different angles to look at. Strategic? If so probably a decent strategy. But let's remember he's been essentially locked in a house this entire time, most likely stressed out like a MoFo. How big do you think you would be from that?

Don't get me wrong, I have zero faith actual justice will be delivered in this case. It's Florida, the limp dick hanging under the bible belt. The state where walking home can get you killed and people eat faces.

Most likely if TM doesn't start beating down GZ and walks home this doesn't happen. But man when ya get disrespected you goota get all up in someone's ass.

This sounds awfully close to "that uppity kid should have known his place".

If I am being followed by someone and they are not physically confronting (FOLLOWING IS NOT CONFRONTING) me I can just keep going to my destination and then notify, or I can initiate and escalate a confrontation. The evidence is murky on this, but the few people who saw the confrontation said it was initiated and escalated by TM.

I do not know anyone who wants to see someone die, but I sure as shit know that if I confront someone who is in some way bothering me (whether I am justified or not) I may get my ass kicked or worse.

The uppity part? No idea how you extrapolate that...

"When a man with money meets a man with experience, the man with experience leaves with money and the man with money leaves with experience."

Cerebral_DownTime wrote:If you're walking alone and someone starts obviously following you, you're not gonna turn around and ask them what the fuck they want?

If they're not in close proximity no I am not. Follow me all you want, if you're not truly invading my space or causing me problems from afar why do I care if you're following me (assuming I'm doing nothing wrong or suspicious).

Every action in life doesn't require a reaction.

Criminals in this town used to believe in things...honor, respect."I heard your dog is sick, so bought you this shovel"

FUDU wrote: If they're not in close proximity no I am not. Follow me all you want, if you're not truly invading my space or causing me problems from afar why do I care if you're following me (assuming I'm doing nothing wrong or suspicious).

Every action in life doesn't require a reaction.

Because someone has to have an agenda to actually follow you... which I would consider suspicious.

FUDU wrote: If they're not in close proximity no I am not. Follow me all you want, if you're not truly invading my space or causing me problems from afar why do I care if you're following me (assuming I'm doing nothing wrong or suspicious).

Every action in life doesn't require a reaction.

Because someone has to have an agenda to actually follow you... which I would consider suspicious.

And what happens if they invade your space?

Define agenda?

We all know GZ was part of neighborhood watch, and with that comes some expectations and responsibility of observation, along with responsibility to report and act in the proper manner. Following is not a crime, that has been stipulated in this case. So legally that doesn't hurt GZ, whether it hurts him in the jury's eyes is another matter, but again that is where the judge might instruct them in their deliberation.

If someone following me invades my space I'd highly consider stopping and asking them if there is something I can do for them. But anymore I'd think long and hard about it.

Criminals in this town used to believe in things...honor, respect."I heard your dog is sick, so bought you this shovel"

FUDU wrote:There's more than enough jb, problem is this case presents a unique situation in which accountability is not applied if GZ walks and justice might not be served if he is convicted.

IDK, FUDU.

All I hear is a "he said, he would say but he's dead" case. I see the whole head injury issue calling into doubt murder vs self-defense and the whole sweatshirt forensics issue coupled with no real witnesses as more than enough tio aquit. Now had it been a man slaughter charge as was probably more appropriate.....?

FUDU wrote:There's more than enough jb, problem is this case presents a unique situation in which accountability is not applied if GZ walks and justice might not be served if he is convicted.

IDK, FUDU.

All I hear is a "he said, he would say but he's dead" case. I see the whole head injury issue calling into doubt murder vs self-defense and the whole sweatshirt forensics issue coupled with no real witnesses as more than enough tio aquit. Now had it been a man slaughter charge as was probably more appropriate.....?

It will probably end up being a manslaughter charge, if the judge so instructs the jury to do so. Which possibly still ends up as an injustice if this truly was self defense, b/c manslaughter v. a minor (IIRC that is how this case was listed as v. a minor) significantly increases min. sentence. So IOW instead of maybe only 5yrs in jail GZ could serve minimum 15-20 if not as many as 30, possibly for defending his life?

IMO a HUGE problem with this case is the issue of getting into the mindset of GZ, which the prosecution's case in mostly based on, but yet not allowing or acknowledging the same approach to TM's mindset (since it has been reported he had a real and rather interesting history of some level of violence and not being such the innocent 10 yr old that the media painted him out to be from the first moment of this story).

Criminals in this town used to believe in things...honor, respect."I heard your dog is sick, so bought you this shovel"

e0y2e3 wrote:Self defense always happens when 911 tells you to stay in your car and you start a fight w/ a gun!

Racist cunt doin what you do.

Self defense has absolutely nothing to do with a 911 operator's instruction, or being an initiator or aggressor. Proportional or equal force has more to do with it than any of that, and an any aggressor can in turn become the recipient of disproportional aggression deeming them justified in self defense as a result.

Hell common sense tells us that self defense is a momentary subjective state of mind for lack of better terms, it is only objective in hindsight in a court of law, like now.

This has been covered in the trial and in review from analysts. Pay attention and learn something.

Criminals in this town used to believe in things...honor, respect."I heard your dog is sick, so bought you this shovel"

FUDU wrote: If they're not in close proximity no I am not. Follow me all you want, if you're not truly invading my space or causing me problems from afar why do I care if you're following me (assuming I'm doing nothing wrong or suspicious).

Every action in life doesn't require a reaction.

Because someone has to have an agenda to actually follow you... which I would consider suspicious.

And what happens if they invade your space?

Define agenda?

We all know GZ was part of neighborhood watch, and with that comes some expectations and responsibility of observation, along with responsibility to report and act in the proper manner. Following is not a crime, that has been stipulated in this case. So legally that doesn't hurt GZ, whether it hurts him in the jury's eyes is another matter, but again that is where the judge might instruct them in their deliberation.

If someone following me invades my space I'd highly consider stopping and asking them if there is something I can do for them. But anymore I'd think long and hard about it.

According to what I have read1. GZ was not acting in his Neighborhood Watch capacity at the time of the shooting2. These organizations have some well defined guidelines on engagement, and one is clearly no firearms3. Didn't GZ initially tell 911 that TM was "running"? Which means that "following" becomes "chasing".

I don't need to be patient, they're going to be shit forever. - CDT, discussing my favorite NFL team

FUDU wrote: If they're not in close proximity no I am not. Follow me all you want, if you're not truly invading my space or causing me problems from afar why do I care if you're following me (assuming I'm doing nothing wrong or suspicious).

Every action in life doesn't require a reaction.

Because someone has to have an agenda to actually follow you... which I would consider suspicious.

And what happens if they invade your space?

Define agenda?

We all know GZ was part of neighborhood watch, and with that comes some expectations and responsibility of observation, along with responsibility to report and act in the proper manner. Following is not a crime, that has been stipulated in this case. So legally that doesn't hurt GZ, whether it hurts him in the jury's eyes is another matter, but again that is where the judge might instruct them in their deliberation.

If someone following me invades my space I'd highly consider stopping and asking them if there is something I can do for them. But anymore I'd think long and hard about it.

According to what I have read1. GZ was not acting in his Neighborhood Watch capacity at the time of the shooting2. These organizations have some well defined guidelines on engagement, and one is clearly no firearms3. Didn't GZ initially tell 911 that TM was "running"? Which means that "following" becomes "chasing".

I've heard all that as well, and IIRC it has been explained by legal experts as virtually irrelevant simply b/c there is nothing illegal about any of his actions at that point. That doesn't mean it can't influence that jury's decision, but again that is where the judge most likely has to step in and give instruction about the law relative to their decision.

It has been explained pretty well that legally this breaks down to the physical confrontation part of the scenario (legally anyways) and still that interjects subjectivity since nobody else in the world was there and saw this.

All those points are why this case is fascinating to me, in terms of law and possible holes in our justice system. B/C it is very reasonable to see this as an example of what is called imperfect self defense (which eieio is way toi immature and stupid to grasp) and also a crossroad where accountability isn't applied.

A young man is tragically now dead, and nothing can change that, but does that justify destroying another man's life if in fact that other man acted in self defense?

...and let's not pretend his life isn't destroyed already justifiably or not.

Criminals in this town used to believe in things...honor, respect."I heard your dog is sick, so bought you this shovel"

FUDU wrote:^ little understanding of the law, and was obviously there to witness the events that transpired.

My bad.

Have no problem understaning the law. Love the "you weren't there" bit. Pretty sure you weren't either, but doesn't stop you from forming an opinion.

So, if what GZ did was self defense....couldn't the same case be made that what TM did was also self defense? So now we got a double self defense cock fight. Where one of them ended up dead. In my ever so humble opinion, the one that is alive probably killed the other one. Also, in my humble opinion, killing someone else is wrong. So yes, i am cool with throwing tough guy because he is holding a gun in prison to let some brothers find out how tough he really is.

I dont disagree with that pup, if he gets convicted Im fine with that bc he did take a life. However it might not serve justice bc it might havr been self defense.

I assume you have kids, so if your kid pushed someone in the back and the other kid turned around and stuck his fist through uour kids face and proceeded to beat his ass is your kid entitled to self defense, despite being the aggressor? Legally and morally your kid has the right to self defense.

This very much breaks down to an issue of proportions and self defense, AND who are you and I to tell someone else when they have legitimate concerns of emminent danger?

Posted on a phone so Im not oing spelling or puncuation checks.

Criminals in this town used to believe in things...honor, respect."I heard your dog is sick, so bought you this shovel"